The Dubai Deal: Confessions of a Knee-Jerk Reactor (with a Few “Good” Excuses)
Yep, along with so many others, I, after a few minutes of not-careful thought, initially opposed the Dubai Ports World deal.
I’m now a grudging supporter, pending further security assurances that it would appear are forthcoming, and promise to cool it on the knee-jerk reactions in the future. But as you’ll see in a bit, I think a lot of us have very good reasons why we reacted as we did.
This National Review Media Blog quick hit briefly and pretty satisfactorily explains why there is “probably” little to be concerned about, while taking The New York Times to task for perpetuating the popular distortions:
Today’s NYT editorial is one of the worst I’ve ever read, both for its slant, and its blatant inaccuracies. It begins right with the first sentence:
It’s easy to imagine how the Bush administration might have defused much of the uproar over a deal to allow a company owned by the Dubai royal family in the United Arab Emirates to run six American ports. This is false. Dubai Ports World will not be running these ports. How many times does this have to be said: They will only be managing the loading and unloading of shipping containers. And they will only be doing this at a few terminals at each port. DP World has a relationship to each port authority similar to that of a tenant and landlord. Tenants conduct their business in the space set out by the landlord, and have to abide by any and all rules. DP World will not be running these ports, just like I don’t run my apartment building.
Now that my current position is out there, I have to express intense frustration with how the Bush administration has handled the issue, and explain why so many people on both sides of the ideological aisle had an instinctive reaction to oppose the deal.
To be blunt: This administration does not seem to recognize that it has earned a reputation as weak in virtually every area of security and defense not directly related to the military and The War on Terror overseas, specifically (at least) these four:
- Airport security. The insane refusal, in the name of “no profiling,” to recognize that 25 year-old Middle Eastern men are more likely to cause a security problem on a plane than 8 year-old little girls, which air travelers see in some analogous way nearly every time they fly, has shaken confidence in the government’s law-enforcement judgment.
- Immigration. The indifference towards border security with Mexico, even in light of hundreds of incursions by criminal gangs, has made people feel that keeping Vicente Fox happy is more important than preventing terrorists from swimming across the Rio Grande or tunneling under from Tijuana. The failure by the government to deport criminals who shouldn’t be here and to deter street crime by illegals, and the incomprehensible courting of the illegal immigrant community by businesses (even mortgage lenders!) have all added to the frustration.
- Language. The refusal until very recently to call out radical Islam (2nd paragraph at link) as the real enemy has given people an impression that the government prefers political correctness over recognizing reality.
- Appointments. The recess appointment of the inexperienced Julie Myers to head up Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the poorly vetted and withdrawn appointment of Bernard Kerik to head up Homeland Security, have caused a lot of people to believe that personal connections are more important that leadership skills and competence.
For these reasons (not “Islamophobia,” as Larry Kudlow and others are condescendingly claiming), the administration should have known that the Dubai Ports World deal would cause a firestorm of opposition, because, frankly, most of us have been trained by prior behavior to expect that deals like this won’t be properly scrutinized. Knowing this, Mr. Bush’s people should have been way out in front on this issue, instead of playing a furious game of catch-up they may yet lose. That so many people throughout the administration did not see this coming, as is apparently the case, is stunningly non-Rovian.
The odds are that Mr. Bush will recover from this snafu, but how many more near-misses can he and his gang take? And when will they get serious about addressing the four glaring weaknesses identified above?
____________________________
UPDATE: There’s a Reason 5, Unpleasant Surprises — Anyone in the mood to explain how six turned into 21? Or is the UPI article wrong? Zheesh. (”partial answer” posted here previously removed, as it was incorrect)
UPDATE 2: Dennis the Peasant explains it all, in this post, and many other previous one. And it’s 23, not 21. And yes, he has almost singlehandedly embarrassed the Mainstream Media and the blogosphere. For my relatively small part: Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. But I don’s agree with him that, at least in my case, it had to do with “playing the Muslim card.” It has/had to do with the “terrorist card,” and I can tell the difference.
____________________________
Feb. 26: Wizbang Weekend Carnival Participant.
Tom,
We are glad to have you back among the rational….. :-)
Comment by George — February 26, 2006 @ 10:44 am
#1, Thanks, but I’m not sure I’d go THAT far.
Comment by TBlumer — February 26, 2006 @ 12:52 pm
Tom,
You know I am truly a friend, but would any of the “knee-jerk” reaction occurred if a German company had sought the contract? Or better yet, India? I think the answer is no…there might have been a concern about a foreign company running things, but we already have Singapore and China in our ports and a British company has been running them.
My very first reaction was “Arab company, our ports?” I read, did a little digging and posted on Tuesday in support of the contract going to Dubai. Whenever I react to a situation, I always try to find out why I did and in this case, the last couple of years has conditioned me to think badly about Arabs, Moslems in particular. And while I dislike my reaction, little has occurred to suggest that I will be able to do anything to change it…except to try real hard not to have a “knee-jerk” reaction.
Comment by Tracy — February 26, 2006 @ 1:54 pm
#3, The conditioning point is well-taken, and is tough to overcome, but it lasts for maybe 10 seconds before the digging commences, which I acknowledge I didn’t do enough of initially.
My fear isn’t “Islamophobia,” with the connotations of religious bigotry, it’s Al-Qaeadaphobia, which is not only a healthy thing to possess in a reasonable amount, but also is a fear of terrorism based upon events and the power structure in the UAE/Arab world, not a fear of a religion per se.
I resent the Kudlow-WSJ types pinning the bigot/irrational fear label on me when that was NOT what it was about.
I still have a fundamental problem with a non-US company being anywhere near the ports, but that battle was over at least a decade ago.
It would be interesting to see how many other countries allow US companies to “manage the loading and unloading of shipping containers” at their port facilities. Betcha it’s very, very few.
Comment by TBlumer — February 26, 2006 @ 2:08 pm
This is the tipping point - Bush has now lost enough of his base to lose Congress. He stepped onto the precipice when he labled patriots “vigilantes”, and now he has jumped with a small symbolic decision over port management. Watching Bush slowly destroy the Republican Party is like watching a car wreck in slow motion. You know it can’t be stopped and you can’t help staring in disbelief.
Comment by John — March 10, 2006 @ 3:24 am
#5, he’s messed up badly on the four items I noted above, and IMO that messup finally came back to bite him in a big way. In a way, it’s amazing that it took this long.
Comment by TBlumer — March 10, 2006 @ 9:39 am
Agree #6 but much bigger than than a short term “mess up”. In my view the Dubai debacle is nothing more than a proxy for immigration. Congress (read Representatives) already feels the anger, outrage and raw fear over unchecked non-white immigration. (Don’t kid yourself, the “war on terror” security argument is just a fig leaf) That’s why they abandoned the President on this issue, in part to cover their collective political behinds, but also to send a wake-up shot across the bow.
Immigration is THE issue that will destroy the Republican Party. Everyone knows it. Frist is one of many who are scrambling to escape the deluge. This is a gut level race issue that is pure political nitro. The Dubai failure was just the appetizer. The main course comes in the Fall, when elected Republicans will feel the true wrath of the people. Low turnouts and protest votes will reverse the Republican majority. MSM will claim it was dissatisfaction with Iraq, but it will be actually be immigration and specifically amnesty.
Most Americans already feel the slow descent, now accelerating, into Imperial decline. They see what so-called “multiculturalism” has done to Western Europe, they see the slow steady hollowing out of our industrial base, they watch in shock at the relentless debasement and ridicule of long held and esteemed moral standards.
Having observed this process, I am very pessimistic about its ultimate result. America stopped being a true representative democracy many years ago. The people who actually control the country answer to no one, save their own craven interests. In a country, where power is bought and sold, where political debate is reduced to sound-bites and code words, and in particular, where patriots are labeled “vigilantes”, the destiny of our beloved nation is tragically the same as all the great Empires that preceeded it.
Comment by John — March 10, 2006 @ 9:59 am
#7, I agree that immigration is the core issue, but I dispute the non-white part. Anyone willing to jump through the hoops and buy into the values is welcome IMO.
Comment by TBlumer — March 10, 2006 @ 10:24 am
#8, dispute? really? Don’t be naive! Racism is just under the surface, whether it be Somalis in Maine, Mexicans in Georgia, or Hmong in Minnesota. It travels under another name, but it’s there, too uncomfortable a cloth to be worn openly. Ever heard of “white flight”? It’s happening not only here but in many countries, such as Sweden and Holland. Here, a soft balkanization is already underway, which can be seen in many U.S. cities. This trend will continue. However, my point is not racial prejudice per se, it is the perceived political threat unchecked immigration poses to white middle America. That is, to accelerate white disempowerment, which most people understand is a dangerous and unstable scenario. I don’t need to cite existing examples of this, do I? The barely hidden fear is that when white America no longer calls the shots, it won’t be very long before they are shot at? (speaking figuratively) Strong tobacco I know, but that’s what blogs are for.
Comment by John — March 10, 2006 @ 11:33 am
#9, I was speaking only for myself.
White flight (and middle-class black flight, and middle-class any-ethnic flight) happens because of crime, bad schools, and high taxes. If those conditions don’t accompany immigration of other ethnic groups or races, white flight for the most post does not occur. The act of picking up and moving is a relatively traumatic event people ordinarily avoid. They would rather stay put unless conditions dictate (actually, shout) otherwise.
The continued allowance of illegals among us, and their ability to drain the system through welfare, school attendance, free health care, and the like, feeds any “under the surface” racist tendencies that may exist because the disparate treatment of illegals and the continued allowance of their presence is objectively an outrage.
And it’s remarkable that you are on the edge of labeling anyone who moves in response to decaying conditions a racist. For one, parents have their kids’ future to think about.
Comment by TBlumer — March 10, 2006 @ 12:04 pm
If the premise of your argument is that it is illegals’ behavior which is the cause of the backlash, I would say in a way I agree. I would elaborate further to say that the idea of a color-blind society in America is a myth, just like equal treatment under the law and “they hate us for our freedom”. And, it will remain a myth so long as race correlates to behavior (culture), which it does and has for all of civilized history. Add a shift in political power to the mix, and you get not only white flight, but panic, hysteria and outrage. The raw anti-immigrant emotions pollsters are tracking come not from analytical thought, but from a deeper tribal calculus.
Of course, this calculus contains powerful logic when it surmises that if you import 15 million Mexicans on top of an already exploding presence, you will replicate a version of Mexico. People see the anarchy and corruption of Juarez, for example, and shudder at the thought. Indeed, Europeans are now paying a heavy price for importing cheap labor (as we now do) in the form of millions of Arab Muslims, and it is not a very pretty picture. Some would say Europe is already lost.
As far as white flight is concerned, parents love their kids, which is why they seek to protect them from group behavior which is dangerous and unhealthy. The race and ethnic correlations are unpleasant but inescapable, the decisions based upon them completely rational. It is up to you to decide what you will call parents whose love of family trumps their fear of political incorrectness.
Comment by John — March 12, 2006 @ 5:16 pm
#11, we mostly agree. The tribal calculus kick in when the behavior problems become evident. The behavior problems largely occurred with African-Americans because, in the name of so-called compassion, we created culture of dependency that led to all sorts of negative behaviors. With immigrants, again in the name of misguided compassion (and more than a little greed), we have allowed people in whose first act on arrival is to break the law, and then let them participate in the same dependency culture.
I maintain that there is plenty of good will available for people who work to rise out of their cirumstances, or who wnat to come here from another country and play by our rules. The goodwill well runs dry, and the tribalism has the potential to kick in, when neither is present.
Comment by TBlumer — March 12, 2006 @ 5:25 pm